Martin Luther's Teaching on Predestination.

[Reformationist]

Hmmm. Well, that is a mistake. I made no such distinction, so at least we can put that to rest.

My apologies. Um...if you don't mind though, could you help me out understanding this apparent inconsistancy:

...which sounds like a rejection of Predestination, by which I mean Election.

Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation.

Okay, so, if by "predestination" you mean "election" and you contend that "predestination does not guarantee salvation" then how are you not saying that, potentially, those whom God predestines (elects) are not guarenteed salvation?

Or did I misunderstand you altogether?

God bless

 

[Albion]

My apologies. Um...if you don't mind though, could you help me out understanding this apparent inconsistancy:



[/color]

Okay, so, if by "predestination" you mean "election" and you contend that "predestination does not guarantee salvation" then how are you not saying that, potentially, those whom God predestines (elects) are not guarenteed salvation?

Or did I misunderstand you altogether?

God bless

Hard to reconstruct the course of the discussion now, but I think my point was that predestination isn't disproven by the lame fault-finding I'd been reading. Predestination doesn't give you a feeling of certainty that you are among the Elect if you happen to be, and it isn't true and Biblical only if it results in saving everyone. Some of us are among the lost, too.

None of that represents an internal contradiction that would permit anyone of us to say "See. It doesn't make sense."

 

[Reformationist]

Hard to reconstruct the course of the discussion now, but I think my point was that predestination isn't disproven by the lame fault-finding I'd been reading. Predestination doesn't give you a feeling of certainty that you are among the Elect if you happen to be, and it isn't true and Biblical only if it results in saving everyone. Some of us are among the lost, too.

None of that represents an internal contradiction that would permit anyone of us to say "See. It doesn't make sense."

Okay. I follow you, and I agree. But you said "Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation." While I agree that it doesn't necessarily confer any reasonable assurance, at least not a personal assurance, I do believe that it is part of God's overall method of gathering His flock and, therefore, is one step in His guarantee to save those whom He predestined. Is that how you see it or do you see it some other way?

God bless

 

[Albion]

Okay. I follow you, and I agree. But you said "Predestination does not confer reasonable assurance any more than it guarantees salvation."

But it doesn't guarantee salvation in all cases. Therefore we cannot say that if there is predestination, it "guarantees salvation"...period. For any one of us, it depends on whether we've been chosen or not.

I hope that makes it clear now.

 

[Rick Otto]

God being totaly soverign guarantees His predestinations.

 

[squint]

If you feel there are legitimate, logical views out there that acknowledge God's active work in the lives of the elect while rejecting the concept of condemnation by exclusion from the merits of His propitiatory work, please, for my edification, find a way to share them that we may all learn.

Thank you,
God bless

Probably not the thread for elaborations.

It is doubtful to me that Luther held double pre or even single pre. Some of the Lutherans here have said what appears to be neither. It may also be likely that Luther himself was a freewill proponent in any case, as the RCC was/is. I doubt he would have gotten too far into their system without affirming freewill.

s

 

[Albion]

Probably not the thread for elaborations.

It is doubtful to me that Luther held double pre or even single pre. Some of the Lutherans here have said what appears to be neither. It may also be likely that Luther himself was a freewill proponent in any case, as the RCC was/is. I doubt he would have gotten too far into their system without affirming freewill.

s

No, it's universally agreed that Luther was a predestinarian. The debate is over certain secondary issues. BTW, I didn't notice any Lutheran here calling him a freewiller, so I'm wondering who you had in mind?

 

[squint]

No, it's universally agreed that Luther was a predestinarian. The debate is over certain secondary issues. BTW, I didn't notice any Lutheran here calling him a freewiller, so I'm wondering who you had in mind?

It appeared to me that Mark R. was saying Luther was assuredly not double and perhaps not even single pre. They got kinda ticked that anyone but them were representing and left.

 

[Albion]

It appeared to me that Mark R. was saying Luther was assuredly not double and perhaps not even single pre.

I don't think so, although I think he was opposing certain views on the subject, including double predestination and OSAS. As for those who might have favored freewill, I can't find them in the thread, but it's not important. I was just curious if you had someone in particular in mind.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't think so, although I think he was opposing certain views on the subject, including double predestination and OSAS. As for those who might have favored freewill, I can't find them in the thread, but it's not important. I was just curious if you had someone in particular in mind.

You are correct albion. Single predestination to salvation; free-will to reject it.

 

[Tangible]

It all comes down to this ... Lutherans, using scriptural theology, can proclaim the Gospel with certainty to any given person on earth - Jesus Christ died for you.

Calvinists, if they are honest about their theology, simply cannot do the same.

 

[squint]

You are correct albion. Single predestination to salvation; free-will to reject it.

ah how did I guess?

 

[Albion]

It all comes down to this ... Lutherans, using scriptural theology, can proclaim the Gospel with certainty to any given person on earth - Jesus Christ died for you.

Calvinists, if they are honest about their theology, simply cannot do the same.

Everyone should be cautious about defining his religion on the basis of what sounds the most appealing.

 

[MamaZ]

We can preach the Gospel.. For we know not whom God will draw. This is why we therefore go into all the world preaching the Gospel. Jesus spoke of Himself and only those to whom the Father drew to Him could come to Him.

 

[Reformationist]

But it doesn't guarantee salvation in all cases.

It doesn't? Can you help me out and cite an example of someone that was elected unto salvation but ended up not being saved?

Therefore we cannot say that if there is predestination, it "guarantees salvation"...period. For any one of us, it depends on whether we've been chosen or not.

Um...I thought that you were using "predestination" and "election" synonymously. Am I now to understand that you don't see predestination/election as synonymous with being chosen?

I hope that makes it clear now.

I wish it did. I'm even more confused now about what you believe.

God bless

 

[Albion]

You are correct albion. Single predestination to salvation; free-will to reject it.

Given that this thread seems to have produced a lot of unexpected confusion, your answer here strikes me as clear cut. I like it.

 

[Reformationist]

Probably not the thread for elaborations.

I understand. When I said, "please find a way to share them that we may all learn" I meant in another thread.

It may also be likely that Luther himself was a freewill proponent in any case, as the RCC was/is. I doubt he would have gotten too far into their system without affirming freewill.

I acknowledge that, at some point, Luther may have been in support of Roman doctrine. However, it is quite clear by his renunciation of many of their core beliefs, as well as a vast amount of writing affirming his support of man's inherent bondage, that he rejected such concepts as "free will," at least in the sense that the Roman Catholics use it today. I mean, does it get any clearer than titling your most prolific piece of writing "The Bondage of the will?"

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

It all comes down to this ... Lutherans, using scriptural theology, can proclaim the Gospel with certainty to any given person on earth - Jesus Christ died for you.

Calvinists, if they are honest about their theology, simply cannot do the same.

Well, that is, in fact, quite true. Then again, it's important to note that THE Gospel isn't that Christ died for everyone without exception so that doesn't present a problem for those who acknowledge the specific nature of the atonement. What we don't face is a problem that you do face if you make the claim that Jesus Christ died for someone who ultimately never believes, unless you espouse universalism. You either make His death of no significance in the lives of those who are ultimately condemned or, to be consistant, must submit that their salvation wasn't the end goal. To say that Christ died FOR someone is to contend that He died FOR a purpose for the person. If it was not to ensure their salvation, for what, pray tell, did He die?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Everyone should be cautious about defining his religion on the basis of what sounds the most appealing.

And the people said,.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

We can preach the Gospel.. For we know not whom God will draw. This is why we therefore go into all the world preaching the Gospel. Jesus spoke of Himself and only those to whom the Father drew to Him could come to Him.

Great post.

God bless